I don't know why people waste their money on CDs when records sound so much better. If there's an artist I really like, I only buy vinyl. CDs are a last resort for me.
You can't get the richness and high fedelity sound you get from a record on a CD.

I also collect a large and highly-variable vinyl collection. With the right cartridge and stylus, some of my records seem to achieve higher frequencies than the cd equivalents. Maybe the sound is just cleaner on the high end or there is no compression used during the recording/mastering process.

I don't know... I haven't heard 5.1 done quite so well on vinyl, and many bands are releasing 5.1 versions of their albums.

Vinyl COULD do it if anyone cared, but it would probably require an on-board analogue to digital converter like my turntable has. I use my digi out and upmix to 5.1 through my pc, and that works for me.

But the number of channels has nothing to do with clarity. I'm not one of these people who insists vinyl is better than cd persay, but I can recognize the one area of vinyl tech that does seem to be superior upon listening.

I still have lots of vinyl, just no turntable. I'd get one but then I have to find a spot for it with enough overhead clearance to get the lid open.

FairF4x0r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still have lots of vinyl, just no turntable.
> I'd get one but then I have to find a spot for it
> with enough overhead clearance to get the lid
> open.


Same here. My turntable only fits on the top of the TV stand. Up there, even a cat creeping by causes skips.

Still, audio characteristics aside, I love good album art.

im waiting for someone to invent an Automobile mount for a turntable. Wow how awesome would that be? Cruising listening to scratchy old Vinyl records (FEEL THA BURN). Wow I LOV how that old Vinyl wears out waaaay faster than any other medium LOSING that all important fidelity. All those pot holes in the road also make the ole needle go scrrrrrrrrrtch. Rigging a backpack to strap the ole turntable and port it around. Might be a bitch walking steady tho. And flipping side one over to side two. YEP Vinyl sure is much better than any advancement in CD techmology! Yep things are always much better back in the day. Guess I should just throw the ole IPOD on the trash ola. WHo wants to make a personal mix of songs id actually WANT to listen to in a row? Naaaah lemme slap an album on and listen to that one or two good songs and all that awesome FILLER. whoooHOO

most of my vinyl is more than 30 yars old and most of them are in awesome condition.

Most of my cd's are worn out and are less than ten years old. CD stock is total garbage.

But I like i said, nobody is knocking the finer points of CD. We've just heard the difference and know that for home listening, vinyl can kick some serious ass sometimes as far as definition and fidelity are concerned. Not to mention listening to records backwards is fun.

No Less an audiophile than Peter Buck himself said that when the Album Murmur was transferred to CD thats the recording they wanted to have of the album back in 1983. Little details and fidelity of the songs came out in the CD format that wasnt possible for technology back then.


Side Note. Are you fucking kidding me? My dad has about 3 book cases of dusty Vinyl rotting in the basement. That stuff is heavy, bulky to store and a regular pain in the ass. He Rigged up a system to play it through a Pre-amp from his turntable and through his System to burn it into his hard drive. He couldnt be happier with this mix.

there is a problem with records: everytime you play them they change. basically, you are scratching the surface which will eventually wear away. digital technology has eliminated this problem. im not debating anyone's opinion, just stating facts. i believe that eventually, digital encoding with surpass the quality of records. if you say records have "infinite fidelity" then you obviously dont know your physics.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

erik Wrote:

>
> Still, audio characteristics aside, I love good
> album art.


Yeah. Perusing the album art it is pretty cool to have larger pics. BUT again the cardboard sleeves my dad has are all scratched up, and many have that RING that shows where the record has been resting inside the sleeve for long periods of time. If you want cool art or posters buy online or get to the gig early and rip the posters off the walls like everyone else.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is a problem with records: everytime you
> play them they change. basically, you are
> scratching the surface which will eventually wear
> away. digital technology has eliminated this
> problem. im not debating anyone's opinion, just
> stating facts. i believe that eventually, digital
> encoding with surpass the quality of records. if
> you say records have "infinite fidelity" then you
> obviously dont know your physics.


Not true. Records last forever if properly taken care of. What ruins records are worn out needles. Bad needles- ruin records. If you use a record player frequently, you should change your needle at least once a year.

I have records from the 50s and 60s that sound like they were recorded yesterday.

My CDs on the other hand are begining to degrade- plus they skip and make funny noises.

Music lover is dead on with regards to records and shelf life... my cds break and scratch badly far more often than my vinyl.

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not true. Records last forever if properly taken
> care of.

i dont think you understand what forever really is. everything decays, even vinyl.

> What ruins records are worn out needles.
> Bad needles- ruin records.

i didnt say the needle would ruin the record, only change it. friction with degrade the record regaurdless of how good your needle is. copying it will cause the same damage to the next copy so it is constantly altered.


> I have records from the 50s and 60s that sound
> like they were recorded yesterday.

CDs can be copied over and over without ever changing. it can also be changed into a different medium and replicated to CD at a later time. therefore, this argument is really vinly versus digital storage. for example, you could copy the audio data and store it in EPROM memory which would retain the data until the silicon decays. i do not know the decay rate of vinyl but i do know it cannot be preserved indefinately. additionally, records can be damaged with ease with a minor slip. dropping it, flooding and then you are fucked. with CDs, the information can be transfered over and over again to backup or for safe-keeping. additionally, solid-state memory is robust enough it could survive being submerged in just aqbout anything for years and still be readable. a modern 500GB harddrive could hold ~770 CDs that are completly filled in a very small space. storing that much music in records would be slightly larger. digital truly is forever... assuming the universe isnt going to collapse on itself, analog last only as long as it's original medium.

note: everything i have said above is based on universal fact and not simply personal experience.


> My CDs on the other hand are begining to degrade-
> plus they skip and make funny noises.

it sounds like you are letting your CDs get dusty or something (so much for proper care) as the medium itself is made of robust plastic. this however, wasnt always the case as original CDs were made of glass. if you are saying your CD-Rs are degrading, that is a different matter. how old are your CDs? additionally, how old is your player? modern players will read discs multiple times to ensure it's the correct data until it gets a consistant reading which is why CDs "skip", the buffer becomes empty. this all happens only if your disc is damaged or if there is poor visibility between the optical reader and the CDs divits (ie: dust is in the way of laser).

too much of your argument is based on personal experience.

the bottom line: vinyl discs decay while CDs can be replicated or changed to another medium without lost of information.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I never disputed the finer points of CD, I'm just saying why I like to listen to my vinyl sometimes... sounds awesome, bottom line.

.
Attachments:

can i also point out that CD-R's hold about 79.59 minutes of music? Vinyl cant even come close to that. True CDs from the 80's were badly mixed BUT there have been improvements in audio clarity ever since then. SACD tech is improving listening experience. Gravis is correct. If I want to hear something interupting the song by giong FTHT, FTHT, FTHT, FTHT, Crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr all over my music? NO I DO NOT. One of my favourite CD's Girlfriend by Matthew Sweet the dude actually RECORDED those vinyl sounds onto his CD. Sheesh Sounds like you all are pining in nostalgia for a Utopian musical past that never existed.

I have CDs that are 15 years old that play fine.

But I never believed the bullshit about how "indestructible" they supposedly are, and take care of them accordingly.

I bet if you guys took care of your CDs like you take care of your vinyl, you might find that they last longer.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MusicLoverVA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not true. Records last forever if properly
> taken
> > care of.
>
> i dont think you understand what forever really
> is. everything decays, even vinyl.
>
> > What ruins records are worn out needles.
> > Bad needles- ruin records.
>
> i didnt say the needle would ruin the record, only
> change it. friction with degrade the record
> regaurdless of how good your needle is. copying
> it will cause the same damage to the next copy so
> it is constantly altered.
>
>
> > I have records from the 50s and 60s that sound
> > like they were recorded yesterday.
>
> CDs can be copied over and over without ever
> changing. it can also be changed into a different
> medium and replicated to CD at a later time.
> therefore, this argument is really vinly versus
> digital storage. for example, you could copy the
> audio data and store it in EPROM memory which
> would retain the data until the silicon decays. i
> do not know the decay rate of vinyl but i do know
> it cannot be preserved indefinately.
> additionally, records can be damaged with ease
> with a minor slip. dropping it, flooding and then
> you are fucked. with CDs, the information can be
> transfered over and over again to backup or for
> safe-keeping. additionally, solid-state memory is
> robust enough it could survive being submerged in
> just aqbout anything for years and still be
> readable. a modern 500GB harddrive could hold
> ~770 CDs that are completly filled in a very small
> space. storing that much music in records would
> be slightly larger. digital truly is forever...
> assuming the universe isnt going to collapse on
> itself, analog last only as long as it's original
> medium.
>
> note: everything i have said above is based on
> universal fact and not simply personal
> experience.
>
>
> > My CDs on the other hand are begining to
> degrade-
> > plus they skip and make funny noises.
>
> it sounds like you are letting your CDs get dusty
> or something (so much for proper care) as the
> medium itself is made of robust plastic. this
> however, wasnt always the case as original CDs
> were made of glass. if you are saying your CD-Rs
> are degrading, that is a different matter. how
> old are your CDs? additionally, how old is your
> player? modern players will read discs multiple
> times to ensure it's the correct data until it
> gets a consistant reading which is why CDs "skip",
> the buffer becomes empty. this all happens only
> if your disc is damaged or if there is poor
> visibility between the optical reader and the CDs
> divits (ie: dust is in the way of laser).
>
> too much of your argument is based on personal
> experience.
>
> the bottom line: vinyl discs decay while CDs can
> be replicated or changed to another medium without
> lost of information.


Vinyl does not decay. Ok, maybe 1,000 years from now, but whats your point?

Are you forgetting that in order to make all that audio fit onto one tiny CD- the audio has to be compromised to a point where the fededelity and mid range frequencies are often lost? Resulting in a slight distortion of the original recording?

This is especially true of older recordings that are transcribed to CDs.

And so what if if CDs hold more audio? Id rather have something that sounds the way it was recorded than a highly compressed audio, which lacks the warmth and richness in frequencies that only analog play back recordings can give.

Id like to add- that when you burn CDs- you compromise the audio quality even more.

They DO change. When you transcribe that digital read from your hard drive onto a compact disc, it will not play back in real time- resulting in a further compression of the original recording. This makes the recording sound even thinner than the original CD resulting in a lack of depth and accuracy to the spectrum of tones and sounds on the CD.

Now granted, they are more convienient. But you can't say for a minute that CDs are undestructable.

In fact- I heard an audio technology specialist say that the shelf life for CDs was 100 years.

The shelf life for records? 10 x that.

> But you can't say for a minute that CDs are undestructable.

No one here is claiming that if you shattered a CD that it could easily be put back together and sound like new... let's stay on topic.

Dude thats what Graphic equalizers are for. I jack up the BASS or even out the Treble or whatever and the CD's sounds GREAT, SO id hava all the best of CD's as well as all the supposed best of Vinyl.

How much for my entire Meade Skelton cd collection ? It is going fast!

You know, on some of my older CDs the printing is actually wearing off? I mean, really. At least on my records the print is still there.

And I turn my CDs over and they have CD Rot . Most of my CDs that are 10 years or more old, I have to throw away.

Very few of my records did I have to throw away because of degrading factors.

Most all my records sound clean and fresh as the day they were printed.

I do have to admit though- that they have yet to prefect a good portable sounding record player.

I play my records on my 1964 Fisher Hi Fi Stereo system. The latest in stereophonic sound technology.

excerpted from http://www.popmatters.com/pm/columns/article/33921/disposable-personality/

My guess is that most consumers are not especially reflexive about their tastes and simply enjoy what they consume. Whatever rationale drives their taste has become completely automatic, and they waste no time with self-consciousness about what the tastes mean. But that doesn’t mean there is no rationale whatsoever and that they are mindless sheep consuming whatever they are told, mindlessly responding to advertising hype. I sometimes find that assumption very seductive, because once I’ve decided that someone else’s consumption is “mindless”, I can exempt myself from being a sheep myself. Drawing this condescending conclusion makes one’s taste for things “out of the mainstream” (be it for silent film or Satanic metal) automatically seem a sign of higher consciousness and allows one to indulge in some deep solipsistic thinking about why he holds such decidedly non-automatic preferences. I’ve come up with countless interpretations of my own love of bubblegum music or bridge or Baudrillard books and then tried to sell these as proof of my vast analytic prowess and the superiority of my nonconformity—thus narcissism becomes a sign of genius.

plug in "hipster" and or "Vinyl" for consumption and question your love of records.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2007 08:40AM by ferfux.

> > MusicLoverVA Wrote:

> warmth and richness in frequencies that only
> analog play back recordings can give.


Warmth? what the hell does that mean pertaining to sound? Thats like saying, this food sure tastes green today. Or man that colour is SO WAVY!

Try to describe SOUND accurately, ie LOUD, soft, Trebly, bassy etc. your own lack of focus torpedoes your argument.

I don't agree that warmth is one of the factors that is enhanced by vinyl.

The reason it may be perceived this way is because elements that are today thought of as adding "warmth", such as using tubular amps (just one example), were used commonly in recording back when vinyl was prevalent, thus the affiliation between warm sound and vinyl. Those techniques are not that common today in general, mostly due to dependence on digital recording techniques.

Warmth is indeed a term used frequently pertaining to sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound#Analog_warmth

In conclusion, warmth is acheived through recording and any medium can bring that facet out of the recording, even cassette tapes.

And of course, robert/musicloverva/meade skelton is a bitch.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2007 09:07AM by RESton Peace.

fine some cold cold night Im in my car I wont turn on the heater instead I will turn on the FM Classic rock radio and hold my hands up to the Warm SOUNDS blasting forth. Sheeesh.

i hear about this "warmth" that records have that seem to be completely unquantifiable. i personally would love to see an analysis of audio and it's diffrences, not just with CDs (which do not do digital audio justice) but with ultra-high bitrate digital recordings. this can be done using analog technology that is able to be analized digitally (yes, that is possible without loosing information). i have a feeling it's a psychosymatic issue.

i doubt CDs do not loose information on the treble because they are not compressed. you must be thinking of mp3s or something. in anycase, hopefully, cd players will be upgraded to play dvd audio discs which have superior bitrates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_DVD

excuse any typos please as im currently blind without my contacts.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

When I say "warmth", I'm really refering to fedelity. Theres a higher fedelity and richness in tonal quality and spectrum of frequencies of sound you can get from analog recordings that you just can't reach with digital.


Yes- digital can have a bit more clarity. But it often lacks mid range frequencies which are most pleasureable to the human ear.

The difference is subtle- but its noticeable enough to an audiophile like myself.

When you get down to it, it is a matter of personal preference.

But Again- CDs were made for convienience and nothing more.

The digital revolution did not enhance sound. If anything it compromised it a little to make it small enough to fit onto a smaller format.

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The digital revolution did not enhance sound. If
> anything it compromised it a little to make it
> small enough to fit onto a smaller format.

perhaps, however, it's really hard to get an vinyl album player for my car. :P

one thing is true though, manufacturing cost plumeted when the CD technology was perfected (when you could first buy a portable CD player that skipped like hell).


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree that warmth is one of the factors
> that is enhanced by vinyl.
>
> The reason it may be perceived this way is because
> elements that are today thought of as adding
> "warmth", such as using tubular amps (just one
> example), were used commonly in recording back
> when vinyl was prevalent, thus the affiliation
> between warm sound and vinyl. Those techniques
> are not that common today in general, mostly due
> to dependence on digital recording techniques.
>
> Warmth is indeed a term used frequently pertaining
> to sound.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digi
> tal_sound#Analog_warmth
>
> In conclusion, warmth is acheived through
> recording and any medium can bring that facet out
> of the recording, even cassette tapes.
>
> And of course, robert/musicloverva/meade skelton
> is a bitch.


yes, but unlike vinyl, casette tapes are highly destructable. They lose their magentism and produce a hiss over the years. Records are forever.

MusicLoverVA/Robert/Meade Skelton - Would you please stop misspelling fidelity?

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Records are forever.

liar! records may last a "long time" but certainly not forever. digital can be maintained forever, again, presuming that the universe does not collapse upon itself.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

records wear out, make a hissing noise, can easily get scratched and skip, MELT in heat, Warp if not stacked correctly and or any other means of "altering" the recording. Records are WAaaaaaay too fragile to maintain Bass, treble or mid. The best times are modern times. You are nostalgiac for a Utopian (musical) past that never existed.

CDs wear out, get scratched and skip, warp in heat.

When they work they don't hiss though.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> records wear out, make a hissing noise, can
> easily get scratched and skip, MELT in heat, Warp
> if not stacked correctly and or any other means of
> "altering" the recording. Records are WAaaaaaay
> too fragile to maintain Bass, treble or mid. The
> best times are modern times. You are nostalgiac
> for a Utopian (musical) past that never existed.


Oh, and CDs cant get scratched? Surely you're kidding. I have CDs I just cant play anymore because of the scratches. Those are when I first bought CDs and thought they were undestructable.

Records have much more bass, much more treble, as well as mid range frequencies.

Once again, CDs are smaller, not better. In fact, they are lesser quality, but work for the Average music listener.

DJs always use vinyl. They don't spin CDs.

Musiclover has no idea what he is talking about, as usual. DJ's have embraced dual-cd pads for years. But since he is from a city that good DJ's avoid like the plague, how would Mr Skelton know?

Um, that is not true. Vinyl is still King for DJs. I know a DJ myself and he swears by it.

If you dont believe me look at this vid from youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Ut4Cn53mg

FairF4x0r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CDs wear out

i have never heard of a CD "wear[ing] out. the closest thing i have heard to that is CDs exploding in drives that spin CDs too fast... which happens to all CDs when spun at the same speed. this happened at my work at GMU with an original win2k pro disc. it was amusing except we couldnt use the DVD drive anymore and we only had two other originals. :P


> [CDs] get scratched and skip

yes, and so does vinyl or any media for that matter. what's your point?


>[CDs] warp in heat.

everything warps in heat! it's called the laws of physics.


oh, and the problem with vinyl is that it doesnt play properly after setting fire to the album, they break when you fold them and when you vomit on it, it smells bad and is gross... like there was vomit on it or something.

thanks for your great points, i hope you like mine too!

---

RESton Peace,
   you should listen to MusicLoverVA. i mean, he totally has you pinned. his friend who loves vinyl and some video on youtube is pretty damning evidence. if it's on youtube, it has too be true, just like wikipedia which is 100% true with no bias to mislead people! hell, if it's his friend who is saying it, you might as well just blow your brains out for being an idiot because the DJ friend is an audio expert with total knowledge of all DJs!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I have CD's from Used placed as well as brand spanking new CDs from the 80's and 90's that sound just as good today as they did when they were first played. My mom and dads records from the basement sound atrocious. hissing, scratching "burn" etc etc. Ive listened to both and Im keeping my CD's. Screw Vinyl for you musical Dinosaurs

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Screw Vinyl for you musical
> Dinosaurs

be careful! those fossils are old an brittle and just may break under the pressure you are applying. LOL!


to everyone: eh... whatever floats your boat... probably sucks.   :D


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2007 09:19AM by Gravis.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > get scratched and skip
>
> yes, and so does vinyl or any media for that
> matter. what's your point?
>
>
> > warp in heat.
>
> everything warps in heat! it's called the laws of
> physics.

Gravis, I was replying to ferfux's post where he was telling us why vinyl sucks and I replied back with exactly what you are saying. Take a look at the context of replies for once and things will make a little more sense. Of course we are in agreement.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have CD's from Used placed as well as brand
> spanking new CDs from the 80's and 90's that sound
> just as good today as they did when they were
> first played. My mom and dads records from the
> basement sound atrocious. hissing, scratching
> "burn" etc etc. Ive listened to both and Im
> keeping my CD's. Screw Vinyl for you musical
> Dinosaurs


Gosh, your parents leave records in the basement and you think thats a good indication of how good vinyl sounds??

My records sound great and most of them are at least 30 years old . It depends on how they were taken care of. My records sound fresh and clean. My CDs sound awful. Also, they dont sound as life like. It also depends on what kind of needle you have and your stereo. Records dont sound all that great on a portable system, but neither do CDs.

My CDs any older than 1995 I threw away. They sound awful.

Vinyl will always be King!

CDs are soooo cheesy too. They lack artistic quality. I mean, we're living in the 2000s now??

I am never going back to CDs ever again. I only have CDs when I use it on my computer and thats it.

I remember when I was just a kid we got our first CD player. It was about 1989. And I was anxious to hear how it sounded. I was sooo dissapointed! It didnt sound better than records. It sounded worse.

We got rid of our CD player and went back to vinyl and never looked back.

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My CDs any older than 1995 I threw away. They
> sound awful.

I have a different take... rock/pop albums now are recorded and mixed way too hot, and to my ears albums from the last five years have sounded like crap much of the time. I prefer my older CDs.

And opinions may diverge when we start separating genres. There is no comparison between well-produced DDD symphonic recordings and older vinyl counterparts.

Rock sounds better on vinyl. Same goes for Country and Classical too.

Jazz sounds Okay on CD. But I'm not a big Jazz fan so....

live in the now people. Your Vinyl Fetish is prolly costing you big bucks to get LP's. Whats next are you going to go completely Retro, driving Clunkers from the 50's, going online through a Mainframe, only using rotatry phones or HEY how about two cans and a piece of string cut it sounds SO MUCH BETTER through the WARMTH of the Yarn string!

Guess what? Vinyl is now. Go to any record shop- at least one that isnt some corporate monstrosity like Waxi Maxi's, and you'll find tons and tons of vinyl.

If you get right down to it, CDs are also an older medium. If you wanted to be "now" you would be doing IPODs and Mp3s

But they just don't cut it for me.

I go to a record shop called PLAN 9. Im not sure if they have them in Faifax. But any place where there are hipsters and you can find good stuff.

oh please, shock! AWE! we have RECORD stores in NoVa too! Like the CD CELLAR! or RECORD AND TAPE exchange! or several places in old towne ALexandria! but Guess what? NOBODY but uptight, angry nerds who also play D&D BUY THE VINYL! Ive been to plan 9. They hide the Vinyl in te Basement a for reason.

They have vinyl in the basement because they have so much of it. They had to make more room.

They are now putting even more vinyl upstairs because in the past 5 years, they have made more sales from Vinyl than any other format.

I know people that work there.

CD CELLAR

If you're talking about the one in Falls Church, I love that place and recommend it to everyone. I spend hours in there sometimes.

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have vinyl in the basement because they have
> so much of it. They had to make more room.
>
>

Yeah because Vinyl is crap and they cant get rid of crap. CD cellar wont buy vinyl. It sits there collecting dust. Same with record and tape exchange.

No, because vinyl is the highest quality format you can buy. Why would a Johnny Cash record cost 30.00$ while the CD of the same album is only 16?

Because you're gettin' cheaper sound quality.

If vinyl is "crap" then why is it out selling all other formats?

CD Cellar is for non hip people. Its where people who aren't in the know shop.

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, because vinyl is the highest quality format
> you can buy. Why would a Johnny Cash record cost
> 30.00$ while the CD of the same album is only 16?
>
> Because you're gettin' cheaper sound quality.


Right... I'm sure production costs for producing the twenty people will buy nationwide has nothing to do with it.

You just made my point!

Do you know why CDs are the main format? Because they're cheap! They're cheaper and easy to make. Anyone with poor studio recording equipment even can make a cd in their basement.

CDs are cheap- and what you get is lesser quality.

A lot more goes into making vinyl records, and they are super expensive. Thats why only people with recording contracts can really afford to make a record.

If you want good quality, you have to get vinyl.

I dislike meade so much that I have decided to switch teams... vinyl is inferior crap.

Plus he is unable to make distinctions between "money cheap" and "quality cheap"... not to mention he defended slavery...

No wonder that according to his own blog he has:

-no job
-no girlfriend
-no prospects for either
-a flailing musical career.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2007 12:13AM by RESton Peace.

Ok here ya go: CDs are both money cheap and quality cheap.

Now, for the average listener they are fine. But for people who prefer higher fedelity, records are and will always be KING.

And I am not Meade, so please stop this sillyness.

Ok?

Good.

Meade you can listen to records all you want... I don't think anyone really cares. If you like rice crispies with your music then it is your call. All hail Meade and his vinyl collection.

I hear no rice crispies on my 1964 hi fi stereo system.
Attachments:

You forgot to include Pics of your 1964 Impala, Rotary phone and knitting needles you old grandma

A 64 impala would be pretty sweet

i have a rotary phone in my house. :D


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Analog vs. Digital



We commonly hear the remark that the digital sound on CD's is inferior, or "inaccurate" to the sound of an analog vinyl LP which is made from a purely analog master tape.
What is said is partially true, the unplayed pressing of a "converted master", that is, an acetate master cut on a mastering lathe, which is plated and that plating used to press the vinyl, and assuming that the vinyl is first quality virgin material, is very close to the master tape (note the phrase "very close"= not the same). Due to the mechanical reality of the process of making the disc, there are artifacts which aren't in the original. That said, the real problem rears its ugly head: there isn't any stylus which can accurately trace the grooves in the plastic record. The cutter uses a stylus which has very sharp corners (not surprising, since its job is to cut the plastic master), and therefore creates a groove which only a like-shaped stylus can trace perfectly. Unfortunately such a shape would simply reform (overcut) the groove into a straight furrow with no audio information remaining after its passing.

So you have a choice of two traditional stylus shapes to use for recovering the audio information from the grooves. One of these has a conical shape, and is usually called "spherical". after the shape of the tip. This shape cannot come very close to following the movements of the cutter at any but the lowest frequencies. The other shape is a stylus which has an elliptical cross section, used with the major axis placed across the groove in an attempt to follow the cutter a bit more closely, but still quite inaccurate at the higher frequencies as well. Worse yet, both styli cause serious damage to the surface of the plastic inside the grooves. The friction of the stylus in the groove, exacerbated by the downward pressure required to keep it in the groove melts the plastic and so destroys the information on the sides of the groove. The damage is so severe (I've examined a lot of records under the microscope in the days when I produced the Old and In The Way LP) that you can only play the record once with any sort of fidelity with the elliptical point, and no more than 3 times with a spherical/conical.

In absolute terms the reproduction of even the best set-up has differences with the original recorded tape as much or more so than digital, only of a different kind, and somewhat "sweeter" in the ear--but inaccurate nontheless. Perhaps these people would be happier with a cassette made directly from the analog master, if such exists. In that case be sure that the cassette is either metal or genuine CrO2 tape, as the ferric formulations including high bias types won't hold the highs for more than a few months.

The above comments about tapes are not to be extended to the digital tape format known as DAT. The recording of digital information on a magnetic medium is not a permanent way to store information. The information on a DAT tape is very short wavelength square waves, and the tape has a serious problem with self-erasure. The effect is somewhat more subtle than the more obvious loss of highs with the analog tapes, but is more difficult to deal with since it is a broad-spectrum type of information damage. The rule with DAT is to always re-copy them every 8 to 10 months to ensure that dropouts and data errors are minimised. Since this is obviously not going to be practical for most people the only way to store any significant amount of digital music is by burning it onto a CD-R disk.

So what good is vinyl? Something that you can have sitting in your living room as a curio to amuse and impress your friends? Turntables for playing LP's that are any good cost a small fortune, both due to the mechanical difficulties of servoing that much mass and making it silky smooth, (a necessity to prevent rumble) but also due to the fact that only a very few extreme fanatics want them. The pickups are a real-world compromise in their mechanics, and very few are any good, and those few set you back big bucks, as well as introducing additional changes in the sound versus the tape originals. In addition, the resurgence in vinyl pressings seems almost exclusively confined to the Rap/Techno market and is driven by the DJ's in that genre.

I agree that the sample rate chosen for encoding CD's is far too low for the best fidelity, and I sincerely hope that a data rate of 200 to 500k will emerge with the introduction of the DVD, but at least the CD will always play the same each and every time you put it on the turntable. Why else do you think we use it? I can hear a lot of things in the music that has been digitized at 44.1k, don't get me wrong, and in fact I am sure that I hear all of the artifacts (such as anti-aliasing) that the most vocal critics of the digital media are voicing. All things in the real world require some compromise.

Perhaps eventually some clever engineer will come up with a crossed-laser, non-contact pickup head for reading the vinyl grooves without causing meltdown. Not an impossible task, given the state of the art, but to take advantage of this you will need records that have never been played even once with a conventional pickup.


From the Owsley stanley website.
thebear.org

Absolutely not! "Record" technology is seriously flawed starting with the recording and pressing process.

However you can say "I like listening to records better than CD's" and I certainly would not dispute that fact.

You are comparing a 1920 Model T to a 2007 Corvette. I don't dislike model T's but I would hardly say they are "superior" to a modern day car.

On a side note, Does that record player have "tubes" in it or say "solid state?"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2007 09:40PM by Lurker..

You can't tell the difference between a record and digital 32-bit, 96kHz, PCM audio.

Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely not! "Record" technology is seriously
> flawed starting with the recording and pressing
> process.
>
> However you can say "I like listening to records
> better than CD's" and I certainly would not
> dispute that fact.
>
> You are comparing a 1920 Model T to a 2007
> Corvette. I don't dislike model T's but I would
> hardly say they are "superior" to a modern day
> car.
>
> On a side note, Does that record player have
> "tubes" in it or say "solid state?"

Lurker- that simply is not true. CDs were made for convienence , not sound quality. CDs are more easier to take care of then records, but records will ALWAYS sound better - on a great stereo especially.

Records have more depth and better tonal quality. If you want to believe the lies that CDs are superior quality then thats fine. But its not fact.

Records last.

Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYf4u-oEqhI

Robert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Records last.

Meade, what color is the sky in your World?

Records are forever- if taken care of and played with a proper needle.
Its not records themselves that degrade, its being played from worn out needles. Worn stylus ruins records!

My records from the 50s and 60s sound flawless. Even records that have scratches can sound good with the right needle.

CDs on the other hand have a shelf life of 100 years- if that. They get what is known as "CD ROT". Many of my older CDs are no longer playable.

My records on the other hand sound great.

Robert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
\
>
> CDs on the other hand have a shelf life of 100
> years- if that. They get what is known as "CD
> ROT". Many of my older CDs are no longer
> playable.
>\

who the hell lives for a 100 years? when im 100 will i still want to listen to my CD's? No im gonna be deaf

Robert,
You need to retake your high school physics class again.

A few too many cats at your house?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2007 01:43PM by Lurker..

We have a collection of about 2000 CDs dating back to when they first came on the market. They have been stored vertically, never exposed to significant temperature changes and treated with great care. The bad ones, about 150, initially turn gold and then become unplayable. The problem appears to be restricted to a number of older discs which were pressed in the United Kingdom. None of the American imports or the European pressings have shown signs of deterioration.

chainbridgeroadtroll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem appears to be restricted to a
> number of older discs which were pressed
> in the United Kingdom.

the fucking brits have screwed us again! :P


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I will agree that CDs are more covienient. I will agree that CDs are easier to take care of.

Can I agree that CDs are superior sound quality? HELL NO!
Because they simply arent.

They sound okay in a car, and thats it.

Records are the best. They have more depth.

I guess only an audiophile like myself can understand these things.

The general public who doesn't give a hoot about sound quality, will continue to by CDs.

Let them eat cake, I say ! Let them eat cake.

Robert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will agree that CDs are more covienient. I will
> agree that CDs are easier to take care of.
>
> Can I agree that CDs are superior sound quality?
> HELL NO!
> Because they simply arent.
>
> They sound okay in a car, and thats it.
>
> Records are the best. They have more depth.
>
> I guess only an audiophile like myself can
> understand these things.
>
> The general public who doesn't give a hoot about
> sound quality, will continue to by CDs.
>
> Let them eat cake, I say ! Let them eat cake.

Cake? Don't u mean crispy creme donuts?

Robert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will agree that CDs are more covienient. I will
> agree that CDs are easier to take care of.
>
> Can I agree that CDs are superior sound quality?
> HELL NO!
> Because they simply arent.
>
> They sound okay in a car, and thats it.
>
> Records are the best. They have more depth.
>
> I guess only an audiophile like myself can
> understand these things.
>
> The general public who doesn't give a hoot about
> sound quality, will continue to by CDs.
>
> Let them eat cake, I say ! Let them eat cake.


you are setting yourself up as some music loving Elitist. Clearly you are clinging to this one aspect because there is in actuallity NOTHING special about yourself.

I would hardly call someone who is still listening to vinyl records a music elitist, more of a music poor man.

He probably thinks a typewriter is better than a word processor. Why? Because when you press on a typewriter key it makes a direct impact on paper.

Well I still listen to CDs as well. But they can't compare to vinyl. Basic bottom line: CDs provide convienence. Records provide superior sound quality.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dislike meade so much that I have decided to
> switch teams... vinyl is inferior crap.
>
> Plus he is unable to make distinctions between
> "money cheap" and "quality cheap"... not to
> mention he defended slavery...
>
> No wonder that according to his own blog he has:
>
> -no job
> -no girlfriend
> -no prospects for either
> -a flailing musical career.


This was ten years ago!

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dislike meade so much that I have decided to
> switch teams... vinyl is inferior crap.
>
> Plus he is unable to make distinctions between
> "money cheap" and "quality cheap"... not to
> mention he defended slavery...
>
> No wonder that according to his own blog he has:
>
> -no job
> -no girlfriend
> -no prospects for either
> -a flailing musical career.

"Warmth" on vinyl is that white noise like* sound which occurs from the stylus in the groove. It defocuses the sound. Best way to isolate it is to listen to what to the difference between before you drop the tonearm down and after the tonearm is down before the music starts. After the tonearm is down silence isn't as silent. It is like a soft focus on a camera.

This isn't the only problem with vinyl...end of the side distortion and vinyl is very fragile and too easily damaged to be practical.

I don't like cds or vinyl. I like files.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dislike meade so much that I have decided to
> switch teams... vinyl is inferior crap.
>
> Plus he is unable to make distinctions between
> "money cheap" and "quality cheap"... not to
> mention he defended slavery...
>
> No wonder that according to his own blog he has:
>
> -no job
> -no girlfriend
> -no prospects for either
> -a flailing musical career.


This was posted twelve. years. ago.

I don't know pal...

I have an $8,000 CD player and a $33,000 turntable hooked up to a $78,000 tube amp and a $147,000 set of speakers...

I can't tell the difference when I play an album on vinyl or the same album on CD.

Analog music always sounds better. Digital music damages the brain.

Huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know pal...
>
> I have an $8,000 CD player and a $33,000 turntable
> hooked up to a $78,000 tube amp and a $147,000 set
> of speakers...
>
> I can't tell the difference when I play an album
> on vinyl or the same album on CD.

You may need to invest in a better cartridge. The difference is noticeable, and you should hear it. What albums are you using for comparison? Do you have access to any test equipment?

MusicLoverVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hear no rice crispies on my 1964 hi fi stereo
> system.


A real audiophile wouldn't stack his damn vinyl like some kind of moron, it's not going to last as long as you think if you keep doing that. You should practice the proper storage method if you want to tout the medium. Smdh.

You got to be kidding me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Warmth" on vinyl is that white noise like* sound
> which occurs from the stylus in the groove. It
> defocuses the sound. Best way to isolate it is to
> listen to what to the difference between before
> you drop the tonearm down and after the tonearm is
> down before the music starts. After the tonearm is
> down silence isn't as silent. It is like a soft
> focus on a camera.
>
> This isn't the only problem with vinyl...end of
> the side distortion and vinyl is very fragile and
> too easily damaged to be practical.

You're thinking of flutter and surface noise. That isn't the 'warmth". The warmth comes from the analog sound waves vs digital sound waves. Music always sounds better on analog.

No, the problem is the standards adopted for sampling and the dynamic range were not up to par. It's definitely possible for digital music to sound good, but you need to encode it to your own parameters.

Sampler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, the problem is the standards adopted for
> sampling and the dynamic range were not up to par.
> It's definitely possible for digital music to
> sound good, but you need to encode it to your own
> parameters.

Losless codecs sound amazing imo, if you have the right amp and headphones. I mean, not crazily expensive but the right ones. But still, I won't ever throw away my turntable

Totally agree with the previous comment, you don't even need crazily expensive hardware to enjoy your music in the best quality possible these days. There are some really good budget audiophile headphones out there on the market. Check out this list for example. I currently use Beyerdynamic 770 Pro and the sound is great. Not perfectly flat in terms of EQ, though, you won't find it in any closed back but the flavor that it adds, I just like it, the mid is a bit scooped and it adds some power to the sound.